As a generation, we’ll take anything we can get if we don’t have to pay for it. Recognized… As a generation, we’ll take anything we can get if we don’t have to pay for it. Recognized or not, it’s a principle that guides many of our life decisions, be it booty calls — why buy the cow if the milk is free? — or dressing up in tin foil to snag a Chipotle burrito on Halloween. Downloading music off the Internet isn’t any different.

This week, a Minnesota woman was the first person convicted in the federal crackdown on illegal downloading. After two trials, a jury found Jammie Thomas-Rasset guilty of willful copyright infringement for illegally sharing 24 songs online in April 2006. The jury found her liable for $1.5 million in copyright infringement damages to the record companies — $62,500 per song.

But stealing music has become the norm — and not only in the United States. According to the Guardian, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, the association representing the music industry as a whole, released a report that 40 billion songs were illegally downloaded in 2008 — roughly 95 percent of all music downloads, and the same percentage of downloads as in 2007.

That’s because once many people learn how to download, it’s hard to stop — at least according to CNET.com, a CBS-run site providing technology news and reviews. Being able to access thousands of songs with a click of a button puts music lovers on a power trip that’s difficult to quit. For the musical omnivore, abstaining from downloading is as difficult as abstaining from cigarettes or sex.

The ease of having a free musical jukebox makes music lovers establish guidelines as to whether they will actually pay for an album. Some use what I like to call the “Radiohead Principle”: If a downloader actually respects a band, he or she might be willing to pay money for it. Also, the downloader consoles himself by attending concerts regularly, thus demonstrating love for a band through both presence and pocketbook. New principles of morality are constructed to compensate for immorality — there are inherent moral guidelines which tell us the “right” way to perform illegal activity.

After all, paying for music doesn’t seem to be in our immediate best interest — no one really makes a direct connection to getting caught by the Feds. Pay to download from iTunes, and the music lover will have to suffer with a smaller music library to accommodate his pocketbook, or, worse, have to select individual songs to download in the event that he can’t afford a whole album. Doing it the right way means we would have to refine our taste and be particular. We couldn’t download something just for the heck of it, and that restricts us as music consumers.

The way the downloader sees it, he can’t afford the music he’s downloading anyway, and so the record company cannot truly be suffering any great loss from individual activity. Charles Arthur wrote about this for the Guardian, where he speculated that people are choosing to spend their money on video games over records because they provide more long-term pleasure. It’s rare that you find an album in which you love every track or an album you can enjoy for weeks and weeks on end.

It’s an interesting postulation and one that makes you wonder why prosecutors are focusing their attention on a single downloader. The federal government is seeking to make an example of Thomas-Rasset, essentially placing the record company’s downward spiral in the hands of illegal downloaders. Rather than crucifying music fans, record companies should focus on evolving and finding a way to exist in a world where downloading will be a reality. More access to music produces more fans and more people likely to see their favorite artists in concert.

In the meantime, music listeners should be wary with their downloading: After all, no matter the convenience, downloading a record is not the same as holding an album in your hands — or earning enough cash to afford the album you love. And the anticipation of waiting for an album’s proper release date is far greater than jumping the gun and having it beforehand. Brendan Canning of the popular Canadian baroque-pop group Broken Social Scene would agree with me. His album was leaked a month early, prompting him to release the album digitally himself.

“But you know,” he wrote on the site for his record label, Arts & Crafts. “It won’t be like going to your favorite record shop and getting a copy in your hot little hands … it merely corrects the situation that is … a messed up version of my record floating around on the Internet, and this is not how I wanted my record to drop.” No liner notes, no glossy photos, no old-time music experience. Let’s hope the era of the untainted album isn’t dead.

Write Caitlyn at [email protected].